The Difference between a Republic and a Democracy
By JC Collins
Proportional representation is the cornerstone of all Republics and ensures that the powers of sovereignty are vested in, and exercised by, the people through that very same proportional representation. This differs from the majority representation in a Democracy where a 49% (or less) minority of the population only have rights that are granted to them by the ruling false-majority.
Outside of this fundamental difference a Republic and a Democracy are the same. Simply put, a Republic ensures the sovereign representation of all individual electoral voters while in a Democracy sovereignty is held in the group or elected false-majority which can at times amount to 30% of the electoral voters.
The ongoing debate here in Canada about eliminating the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral voting system and implementing a more balanced and fair proportional representation system is a direct extension of the growing need to move from the Monarchy system of governance to a Republican system of governance.
The origins of Canadian Republicanism preceded Canadian Confederation during the rebellions of 1837. The new nation eventually embedded the British Parliamentary form of governance into its constitution and the ideals of a Canadian Republic went to the wayside. But the world is fundamentally a different place now as we march forth further into the 21st Century and the Monarchy form of governance with its disproportionate voting system is in dire need of change.
The growing demand for electoral reform and proportional representation is one of the first steps which can be taken to transition the nation towards this Republican style governance framework. The sovereignty of the individual and the sovereignty of the state are directly connected and one cannot exist without the other. The Parliamentary Monarchy which Canada currently operates under provides neither individual sovereignty nor national sovereignty.
As an example let’s discuss one of the hot topics which is taking place on the Canadian political landscape. The M103 Islamophobia legislation is being debated and will eventually be voted on. The motion is attempting to make Islamophobia a crime but fails to clearly define the term Islamophobia.
Keep in mind that Canada already has laws which protect the rights of the individuals and minority groups in so far as they align with the mandates of the false-majority. But this isn’t stopping the Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, along with select Conservative-leftists and others who succumb to the pressure of political correctness, from pushing the motion and reducing free speech and criticism of its governance policies.
But does the pending M103 legislation actually reflect the will of the people and represent the vast majority in the nation? Sadly it does not.
The Liberal government of Trudeau, and its policies, serves as the perfect example of disproportionate representation and why change is required. Canada has 338 electoral parliamentary seats from which the Liberals won 184 seats. This is 54.4% of all possible seats. Sounds reasonable on the surface but when you take a closer look you realize that the Liberals only received 39.5% of the popular vote. That would suggest that 60.5% of Canadians, or greater, could potentially disagree with the policies of this government.
In a recent University of Toronto and McGill Institute study it was revealed that 65% of Canadians feel that immigrants should take on more Canadian values. This can be interpreted as a fairly accurate representation of those who would speak out against the imported Islamic values which have been taking place. This is the same demographic which M103 would affect the most as electoral voters become afraid to speak out and eventually become disenfranchised and no longer represented.
A poll conducted last year in Ontario provides further confirmation of this disproportionate representation. A whopping 75% of those polled held the opinion that Islamic immigrants hold fundamentally different values than Canadians and that Islamic mainstream doctrines promote violence.
Another 53% said Canada should only accept immigrants from nations and regions which share similar values as Canada, with 75% wanting stricter regulations around who is allowed into the country.
It is very clear that the majority of Canadians think that the Islamic culture is not compatible with Canadian culture and want less Islamic immigration. Does this constitute Islamophobia if it is a representation of the majority of Canadians? Am I in breach of M103 legislation because I present these facts to Canadians? Should 75% of Canadians remain disenfranchised and not represented because our views and opinions are not the same as a 25% minority who happen to control the halls of power in our Monarch Parliamentary system of governance?
Hint – A 75% demographic of Canadians with a shared opinion does not make that opinion a “phobia”, it makes it a very real concern for electoral voters who need to demand proportionate representation through electoral reform and changes to our system of governance.
Recently I watched one Canadian journalist make a comment on the national news that the fear of Sharia Law spreading in Canada because of our immigration policies was “looney”. This so-called journalist who should be impartial and present the truth to Canadians called 75% of Ontarians, and to a larger extent Canadians, “looney” for holding a specific opinion which is at odds with those of the minority representation in Ottawa.
There have been previous nations around the world who made successful transitions from a Monarchy form of Parliamentary governance to a Republic form of Parliamentary governance. These nations span the cultural spectrum but all share the ideals of Republicanism and proportionate representation.
The place to begin here in Canada is to first recognize the need for a Republican form of government and spread the message that electoral reform and proportionate representation are in fact the same issue as individual and national sovereignty, both of which are embedded features of Republic mandates and cannot be provided by a Monarch Parliamentary system of governance.
The mandate of the Republican Party of Canada is to spread this awareness and begin the process of renewing and returning both individual sovereignty and national sovereignty to Canada and its people. The one law, one people, and one nation ideals of the RPC are meant to promote our culture, in all its varying forms, by ending cultural segregation and ensuring the balanced application of the laws for all people. As the majority of unrepresented Canadians show, increased Islamic immigration will only cause further cultural segregation and lead to the widespread social challenges which are now spreading through Europe.
JC Collins can be contacted at email@example.com
This article is copyrighted by POM Media©2017. As non-Premium content it can be shared and reposted without further permission.
Please subscribe for Premium Content.